Partly allowed

Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Indus Finance Limited

Madras HC6 Jan 2021TC/303/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's Tax Case as not pressed. The appellants failed to prosecute because the tax effect remained below the limit specified in C.B.D.T. Circular No.17/2019, rendering the vitiated order unaffected, though the question remains open. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Tax Case dismissed as not pressed; substantial question of law kept open; no costs.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Indus Finance Limited — Income Tax | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.01.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶7

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu – III, Madras ... Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s. Indus Finance Limited, Kikani Towers II Floor, Chennai – 600 006.

¶10

[Respondent name amended vide order of this court dated 14.12.2016 made in T.C.No.303/2008] ... Respondent

¶11

Tax Case filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 15.06.2007 passed in I.T.A.No.436/Mds/2002, against the order dated 05/03/2002 made in ITA No.436/2001-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai against the Assessment Order dated 16/03/2021, made in GIR No.465 passed by Income Tax Department, Joint Commissioner of Income- Tax, Special Range-X, Chennai for the Assessment year 1998-99.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. M.Swaminathan Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr. Koushik

¶13

This Tax Case has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai, by raising the following substantial question of law:-

¶14

" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in setting

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct the assessing officer to allow the 100% depreciation on the two wind mills of the assessee, even though the assessee was not proved the ownership of the two wind mills to claim depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act?"

¶17

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore).

¶18

In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Tax Case filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open the substantial question of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Rj
Toi
1.The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Tamil Nadu-III, Madras.
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
'c' Bench, Chennai.
3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-V,
Chennai-34.
4.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Special Range X, Chennai.
Tax Case No.303 of 2008
rld[co]
srg 01/02/2021

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Indus Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Indus Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri T.M.Srinivasan Vs the Joint Commissioner of

M/S.Harvey Heart Hospitals Vs the Assistant Commissioner

G. Muralidharan Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt.Ritha Sabapathy